Posted - 02/23/2013 : 18:06:42 Anyone see the hotstove on cbc tonight? Apparently they've restructured realingment it by moving columbus and detriot east, so there are 7 team divs in the west and 8 team divs in the east. They've also talked about a wildcard postion to balance the unfairness created by the 7-8 dynamic.

11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)

Alex116

Posted - 02/26/2013 : 13:42:27 I don't love it, that's for sure. I agree with guest4803 in that a team like Detroit shouldn't really complain about travel when they not only have all those current div rivals close by, they really aren't that much further east than Chicago, Nashville and St Louis. I think it has more to do with the big ol' dollar $$$. Det would like to have more games against Toronto, Montreal, NYR, Boston, etc. Like they need the "gate"?

My main pet peeve right now is the #3 seed. Get rid of that div winner crap and award the teams with the best records the best spots. Secondly, I'm not sure i'm on board with the 1 v 4 / 2 v 3 divisional playoff format. Hard to do the math, but isn't it possible that a 4 seed in one div could potentially be better than a 3 seed in the other div? Anyway, unlikely and not a big deal i suppose?

What i'd love to see, and i doubt it will ever happen, is a do away with the whole East vs West. Now, if it's needed for reg season, fine, but i'd like to see 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, etc. I know there's more travel involved, but it's only for a select few teams / series each round and less and less teams as we near the cup! I don't know about you guys, but wouldn't you love to see Stanley Cup finals with Montreal vs Toronto, Philly vs Pittsburgh, Vancouver vs Chicago, etc at some point???

fat_elvis_rocked

Posted - 02/26/2013 : 13:40:37

quote:Originally posted by Guest4803

To me the most pressing reason for realignment seems to be the absurdity of the jets playing in the Southeast. If not for this I wouldn't see any reason for realignment. If I'm missing anything please let me know.

Looking at where teams are situated geographically, the most obvious answer seems to be:Send the jets to the northwest divisionSend the avalanche to the pacific divisionSend the stars to the southeast division

I also don't think this breaks up any really major rivalries...

The red wings are actually situated quite close to Columbus, Chicago, St. Louis and Nashville so I don't see much to complain about there. Sure the west has a decent amount of travel but I think that's unavoidable. If it ain't broke don't fix it. This business about having a different number of teams in the east versus the west just seems slightly nonsensical, and opens the door for all sorts of inequity and logistical issues, such ad balancing the schedule and figuring out the playoffs. To me the best answer is one that changes as little as possible, and to me the above noted change is it. Thoughts?

I agree that it should be the simplest solution and had originally thought the easiest would be to simply swap Nashville and Winnipeg. If I remember correctly, there was push back from some of the Central teams about increased travel times having to cross borders or some such drivel.

Would a nearly as simple change of moving Winnipeg to the Northwest, Nashville to the Southeast and Minnesota to the Central not alleviate, and improve those concerns?

this is the plan that the NHL and NHLPA have come up with. Having 2 unbalanced divisions in the same conference - meaning there are 2 more teams in the east than in the west - is just stupid.

There are also no details of what a regular season will look like. Given the imbalance, teams in the east will play each other less than teams in the west, and a home-home against every other team in the NHL seems unlikely.

Guest4803

Posted - 02/26/2013 : 11:47:57 To me the most pressing reason for realignment seems to be the absurdity of the jets playing in the Southeast. If not for this I wouldn't see any reason for realignment. If I'm missing anything please let me know.

Looking at where teams are situated geographically, the most obvious answer seems to be:Send the jets to the northwest divisionSend the avalanche to the pacific divisionSend the stars to the southeast division

I also don't think this breaks up any really major rivalries...

The red wings are actually situated quite close to Columbus, Chicago, St. Louis and Nashville so I don't see much to complain about there. Sure the west has a decent amount of travel but I think that's unavoidable. If it ain't broke don't fix it. This business about having a different number of teams in the east versus the west just seems slightly nonsensical, and opens the door for all sorts of inequity and logistical issues, such ad balancing the schedule and figuring out the playoffs. To me the best answer is one that changes as little as possible, and to me the above noted change is it. Thoughts?

markliso

Posted - 02/26/2013 : 06:25:48 I agree, I am also resistent to change. But I think the playoff format annoys me more than the conference changes. I think I would be ok with realignment as long as playoffs were done properly/equitably.

Travel definitely takes a toll, but Alex is right, look at the past history even in the last ten years, Calgary made it to within one game, Edmonton within one game, Vancouver within one game, let alone all the past winners from the corners of the continent. It's not perfect, but it is definitely doable.

Alex116

Posted - 02/25/2013 : 13:24:47 Agreed, a home and home would be awesome! Just don't know that they can make it work.

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 02/25/2013 : 12:42:23 I am a math guy and I just dont like the math of this proposed realignment. I know the travel for some divisions will be better and Detroit/Columbus/Winnipeg will benefit from a restructured NHL, but the west seems to get the short end of the stick again with travel being so spread out again, while teams in the East are much closer.

I would like to see a home and away game for each team in the league and think the fans deserve to see every star in the NHL at least once a year. There are advantages to having teams face each other twice a year regardless of distance which would reserve 58 games a year leaving 24 games for interdivisional games. In a 32 team NHL which I am certain will happen in the near future would reserve 62 games leaving 20 games for 4 - 8 team divisions.

All that being said I dont know how you could institute this into the schedule and make it a fair schedule. There is no fair way to say one division doesnt have an advantage travel or schedule wise over the other as the math is uneven.

Alex116

Posted - 02/25/2013 : 11:45:37 Slozo, i agree with you to some degree on the travel in that they're usually in a comfy seat on a comfy plane, etc. However, there's still the trip to the airport, where they have to arrive a little early (maybe not as early as you and i, but still early), go through security, etc, board the plane, etc, etc. Then, they get off, have to get on buses, check into hotel, etc, etc. Regardless of the comfort of the plane, travel still takes its toll.

Now, with LA winning last year, Vancouver being in game & the year before, Emonton winning multiple cups (not sure this one's a fair representation as those teams were just ridiculously good), Calgary winning, Anaheim winning, etc, it's proven that west teams can win. Also, the Canucks won back to back President's Cups with this travel all season long. Easy to say that by the time the playoffs roll around that they're more tired, but i don't totally buy it. PLUS, the team (or teams) they play face virtually the same travel in a series!!!

I think travel has a bit to say, but these are world class conditioned athletes, or so they should be, and they get paid millions to play this game and be at their best. Do what's best for the league and it's teams and i'm okay with it!

slozo

Posted - 02/25/2013 : 11:04:56 For players that get first class, express line treatment, and are allowed a beautiful sleep/rest/downtime on an airplane . . . I honestly cannot ever call that any kind of a huge crutch to lean on. I really can't.

It's the times when you get into another city late, then get a 5 hour sleep before an afternoon game . . . that, I get. And funny enough, that happens fairly often out East, where the flight delays are more frquent due to weather and traffic.

I think Detroit should be with the East teams, and so should Columbus. It's not a perfect solution that they offer, but there probably isn't one, you are always going to be making someone a bit upset.

So you go with the lesser of evils . . . and concentrate on satisfying what is most important. Detroit returning to the East is probably #1, Winnipeg going to the West is obviously up there too, and giving Dallas less time zones to deal with is definitely a priority. Giving a huge boost to Columbus by putting them in the same conference as some high profile teams certainly helps them, and hopefully engenders natural rivalries.

I think their proposal satisfies all those points, while trying to maintain a good competetive balance . . . so not sure what there is to complain about? Just as decent as the last proposal that was shot down.

Which means this one is also no guarantee!

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

nuxfan

Posted - 02/25/2013 : 09:32:32 I also have not heard anything I like very much - the reality is there are more team in the EST timezone than there are in other time zones, and all those teams want to stay in that timezone. That makes it difficult to balance.

As a Canuck fan, I hate the imbalance that is naturally in place for travel. VAN sucked yesterday getting beat up by DET 8-3. But when you realize that it was their 4th game in 6 nights, and in those 6 days then went from Vancouver to Chicago, then to Dallas, then to Nashville, and finally to Detroit - 8,000km and 3 time zones - its not too surprising that they looked pretty bad on the ice, I don't care how conditioned athletes are to traveling that is a harsh schedule. Its something that western teams have to deal with every year, more than once, and it sucks.

I think that the NHL should consider balancing out travel for all teams, and completely leveling the playing field. This could be done by:

- abandon all conferences, have a single league. All teams play every other team 2 times, and play 24 teams 3 times.

- have geographically dispersed conferences. This still allows you to keep regional rivalries in place, but level the playing field from a travel POV. Imagine a conference with BUF/TOR/OTT/MTL/DET, but also LA/ANA/PHX/SJ/COL, DAL/NSH/STL/CBJ/CHI (for example). 2 conferences total, figure out some playing schedule that makes sense. Organize road trips so they minimize travel impact.

I realize that there is not enough interest at the BoG level to do this - enough eastern teams like their cushy and inexpensive travel schedules, and enjoy games in the same timezone. Just my 5c.

@valanche

Posted - 02/24/2013 : 15:49:41 I may just be old school or resistant to change but I have not liked any of the suggestions I have heard so far.

Although if we can remove the undeserving 3rd place southeast division winner that would be fine by me